Hey Maj, if you're so sure you won our debate, why do you keep trying to re-fight the battle elsewhere like some Confederate sympathizer re-fighting the Battle of Gettysburg with toy soldiers? Since this thread is for debate challenges, not debate rehashes or debate alternate-history, why don't you find someone else to challenge to a Kalam debate, make a challenge on a different topic, or accept one of the other challenges?

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

Hey Maj, if you're so sure you won our debate, why do you keep trying to re-fight the battle elsewhere like some Confederate sympathizer re-fighting the Battle of Gettysburg with toy soldiers? Since this thread is for debate challenges, not debate rehashes or debate alternate-history, why don't you find someone else to challenge to a Kalam debate, make a challenge on a different topic, or accept one of the other challenges?

Ooops, DeM, you're being bad. This thread is not for hashing over debate points. You shouldn't have posted the response you did to Majesty.

I've asked Admin 1 to split out the above exchange between Majesty and myself (for some reason I can't split topics) into a separate Aftermath thread. What I am intending to illustrate here, and reasonably well I think, is that a formal debate cannot sensibly take place unless both parties agree on the terms of discussion. As far as I can tell, there was no such agreement on terms in the debate between Majesty and kcrady, and as such, both parties can - perhaps with some justification - claim to have 'won' it on their own unspecified terms. Both parties seemed to go into the discussion with very different ideas about what they and their opponent were indenting or expected to achieve, and that can only result in people talking at cross-purposes.

Majesty might, I suppose, claim victory on the basis that the KCA wasn't proved to be demonstrably false - though this is scant justification IMO, as one would have to be an idiot to accept a debate on almost any subject, had such been the terms explicitly set out beforehand.

kcrady can claim victory on the basis that you demonstrated the KCA rests upon a variety of hidden assumptions that one is not required to adopt, applies a notion of 'plausibility' to supernaturalistic notions for which the very idea of 'plausibility' is, well, "not even wrong" as Wolfgang Pauli would put it, but completely and utterly conjectural and unfalsifiable. While the merits of various alternative hypotheses are debatable (a point conceded by you from the outset) and also speculative, they are at least theoretically falsifiable in that it is theoretically possible to construct a mathematical or computer model of any specific hypothesis and see whether it would generate space-times like our own.

The result is a mess - everyone, including myself, ends up working with their own assumptions (not "bias", thank you very much Majesty!) about what the terms of debate really are, when they should have been stated explicitly in the first place. I want a more formal structure the next debate we have. I want debate proponents to state, in their own words, precisely what they intend to establish in the course of their debate. Then we can assess people on whether they achieved what they set out to achieve. It's the only fair way of doing it - even if it means some haggling over debate terms between antagonists beforehand.

The result is a mess. I want a more formal structure the next debate we have.

Rather than "formal" structure, I support PRECISELY defined and NARROW topics that can really be FOCUSED on. A debate ala WLC is especially bad, because one of WLC's tricks is to broaden the argument to the point of diffusion--putting his opponent on the defensive in an attempt to respond to all the points. I've watched him do that in almost every debate: Opening--a laundry list of points; closing, a review of all the points his opponent FAILED to address.

The debates need to be so focused that each person has to HAMMER. Under those conditions, there's usually a winner and a loser. Any possibility of vagueness or broadening the argument, and the potential loser will pull a debate into the appearance of at least a draw.

IMO, the ideal debate would consist of 100 or more 3-sentence posts, rather than 20 posts of 200 sentences each! Anything else is just too exhausting for both the participants and the audience.

The result is a mess. I want a more formal structure the next debate we have.

Rather than "formal" structure, I support PRECISELY defined and NARROW topics that can really be FOCUSED on. A debate ala WLC is especially bad, because one of WLC's tricks is to broaden the argument to the point of diffusion--putting his opponent on the defensive in an attempt to respond to all the points. I've watched him do that in almost every debate: Opening--a laundry list of points; closing, a review of all the points his opponent FAILED to address.

The debates need to be so focused that each person has to HAMMER. Under those conditions, there's usually a winner and a loser. Any possibility of vagueness or broadening the argument, and the potential loser will pull a debate into the appearance of at least a draw.

IMO, the ideal debate would consist of 100 or more 3-sentence posts, rather than 20 posts of 200 sentences each! Anything else is just too exhausting for both the participants and the audience.

By "formal structure" I mean that debate proponents must agree on and submit a specific set of rules governing the debate (which might include "no post shall be longer than 400 words", for example) and as referee I will enforce whatever rules the debaters impose upon themselves. I think, AT MINIMUM, it should include:

- The specific motion being proposed (preferably in a format that would fit into "This House {believes/agrees/deplores etc.}...") - this shall constitute the topic of the debate and I will be expected to enforce this- What the proponent(s) of the motion must seek to establish or demonstrate (if they fail, the opponent is deemed to have 'won' the debate)- Number and order of posts (e.g. four posts per person, alternativing between debaters, proponent to start)- Limits on posting (word limits if any, are consecutive posts allowed, is editing or deleting allowed)- Time limits on posting (e.g. if no reply within a week, the forum member is deemed to have withdrawn from debate, but quick-fire debates could impose more stringent time limits)

I agree with you about WLC, though. A rather disingenuous piece of trickery.

Yeah i agree Deus. One thing that I am REALLY in favor of, is that both participants in the debate can have unlimited space to make his/her case. If you can set it up like that, that would be perfect. I am waiting on the next debate. These posters on here are starting to look like something to eat. And I am STARVING.

Yeah i agree Deus. One thing that I am REALLY in favor of, is that both participants in the debate can have unlimited space to make his/her case. If you can set it up like that, that would be perfect. I am waiting on the next debate. These posters on here are starting to look like something to eat. And I am STARVING.

Did you even read Deus' or GMT's posts? They're talking about making the posts shorter and more precise back and forths[1]. The opposite of the huge 20,000 word haymakers you and kcrady were throwing at each other.

Yeah i agree Deus. One thing that I am REALLY in favor of, is that both participants in the debate can have unlimited space to make his/her case. If you can set it up like that, that would be perfect. I am waiting on the next debate. These posters on here are starting to look like something to eat. And I am STARVING.

I don't agree. In any "stand-up" debate, debaters would be time limited. Debaters are thereby encouraged to keep their points concise and stick to the topic at hand, and not attempt to bury their opponent in a wall of words. The same should apply here, I think.

And again, I would drop the "attitude" if I were you. You didn't cover yourself with glory in the last debate, your protests notwithstanding. All that's standing between you and the next debate is agreement on the terms of discussion. I've provided a template for such above.

In any "stand-up" debate, debaters would be time limited. Debaters are thereby encouraged to keep their points concise and stick to the topic at hand, and not attempt to bury their opponent in a wall of words. The same should apply here, I think.

That's why I say again that the very BEST way to accomplish that is NOT with rules but with topic. The more NARROW and LIMITED the topic, the less opportunity to avoid the topic.

An example would be, instead of the entire kalam argument (or an entire BIBLEGOD argument, of which kalam may be only a small part), one could debate: "Can it be determined that no other spacetime existed before the Big Bang singularity of our spacetime existed?"

In fact, if Majesty would like to debate THAT topic with me I would be happy to oblige. I would take the side that such a determination CANNOT be made. For that debate I would not feel compelled to place any limitations on posting time intervals or text length. I think I could make at least my initial statements quite short and concise.

That's why I say again that the very BEST way to accomplish that is NOT with rules but with topic. The more NARROW and LIMITED the topic, the less opportunity to avoid the topic.

You say that like it's an either/or scenario. It's eminently possible to do both. I also don't agree that it's "best" merely to have a (supposedly) narrow topic, but no rules. I do advise setting some limits - at the very least, I need to know when a debate can be declared over, and I'd prefer not to leave it so open-ended that it could run on for weeks. If you intend to be concise, great, but will your opponent be concise or will they attempt to bury your prose in their own?

At any rate: There's a topic I'd be willing to try, which I'll debate with Majesty if he pleases. It's at least PART of the Kalam debate, which he likes to have. I BELIEVE, just by choice of topic, that there's less opportunity for it to become a mess. If Majesty takes it up, we can see.

Did you even read Deus' or GMT's posts? They're talking about making the posts shorter and more precise back and forths[1]. The opposite of the huge 20,000 word haymakers you and kcrady were throwing at each other.

At any rate: There's a topic I'd be willing to try, which I'll debate with Majesty if he pleases. It's at least PART of the Kalam debate, which he likes to have. I BELIEVE, just by choice of topic, that there's less opportunity for it to become a mess. If Majesty takes it up, we can see.

Send me a pm with the topic of the debate, and what you will be defending. Lets go.

At any rate: There's a topic I'd be willing to try, which I'll debate with Majesty if he pleases. It's at least PART of the Kalam debate, which he likes to have. I BELIEVE, just by choice of topic, that there's less opportunity for it to become a mess. If Majesty takes it up, we can see.

Send me a pm with the topic of the debate, and what you will be defending. Lets go.

The topic of the debate is specified in reply #67. It's in quotes. Please affirm that you understand it and that you are willing to debate on the "yes" side of the question: It CAN be determined that no other spacetime could have existed before ours, or in "another place" even currently. As I specified in reply #67 I am taking the "no" side: It CANNOT be determined that no other spacetime could have existed before ours, or other than ours.

I don't want this to end like the last one, where I took a fair amount of trouble to compose a statement, and then (after reading my statement) you decided not to debate.

I would also like to know BEFORE starting this debate whether you intend to also debate Hermes. If you are going to debate Hermes then I prefer to wait until that debate is finished (or did you decline that debate, too?).

The truth is the most important thing that there is, yet it is the least popular thing on Earth. And, obviously, this discrepancy is not by chance, but rather, by design-the truth is being actively suppressed.In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act George Orwel

It would be a different story if she/he (who writes his lines anyways, f ucken puppet!) said "Ala Bless america" , Or May the Goat Bless america, or God Bless america. Whats the difference it politics.

Here is the "Real Question": Does anyone know of a Government that is in power that is honest and true, elected for the people by the people and rules that way? If you do let me know, make room i'm coming in!

Quick Quiz: 300+ american's pay 10$ a day in taxes = 3 billion+ a day in revenue.

Ok half of that equals 1.5 billion$ a day. Average month 30 days equals 45 billion$ a month times 12 months = $540,000,000.00 in taxes.

That is just taxes and that is only at $5.00 for 300,000,000 people a day, no other revenue brought in other than that. You tell me they have a problem with money. Understand that 1 billion seconds ago it was 1959!

A billion seconds ago it was 1959.

A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.

A billion hours ago our ancestors were Living in the Stone Age.

A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.

PS: If a Moderator or if a Administrator wants to take this out because it is politically incorrect. Well that just shows you now doesn't it. Well the mod the admin and myself know that I am correct about politics!

Rules of the debate:

I am for that this is fact. Government is a fictitious part of life.

1. Is what is wrote here truth. Not a bunch of bullshit lies. 2. Myself and or one other debate about such said, against 2 others.3. Belittlement is not allowed.4. Sentence structure as short as possible to get your point across.5. Any source of relevant information is valid. Small as possible quotes.6. Debate will start firstly by finalizing the rules of the debate in the actual debate thread.

So would this be on how you would start a debate?

Edit 1.:Sentence structure.

Edit 2.:

Ok I will rephrase that. Would anyone like to debate this post.

I made up a fictitious debate topic to see if anyone is actual checking this thread and are able to debate. Also if and how to have a topic of debate.

I don't see a list of, or area of or for debate topics.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2010, 12:48:22 AM by knot »

Logged

The truth is the most important thing that there is, yet it is the least popular thing on Earth. And, obviously, this discrepancy is not by chance, but rather, by design-the truth is being actively suppressed.In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act George Orwel

Hi Fran. I think this should proceed in a manner similar to a formal debate. Each of us makes an opening statement, followed by alternating rebuttal posts, then at the end by concluding statements. See an example of a previous debate I was involved in here. Since both of us have a tendency to write epic multi-post posts, I think it would be good to have a rule limiting each response to one post. This will encourage us both to be concise and focused in our arguments. Since it takes more space to rebut a claim than to make one, we may want to stipulate an "outline" in advance (so we can go through the claims of both sides one at a time) and/or some limit on the number of claims that can be made and need to be addressed by the opponent.

My idea of an outline would be something like this:

1) Validating the "Four Minimal Facts" (discussion on how "solid" they are historically)

3) Is a Natural Explanation of the "Four Minimal Facts" Impossible? (the heart of the debate--you would presumably make the case that no plausible natural explanation is possible and therefore it is necessary to resort to a supernatural or paranormal explanation, I would argue for the reverse and provide at least one plausible scenario for how Jesus' body could have turned up missing, and for the claims of post-mortem appearances. I would stipulate that no single explanation is necessary any more than a single explanation is required for the start of World War I.[1] The explanations need only be plausible singly and together.)

I welcome the presence of a "referee" to keep us on track. Would you accept Admin 1? IIRC, you considered him/her to be fair in the other debate. If not (or if Admin 1 can't/won't take the job), are there any other Mods you would suggest, or members you might propose for temporary mod-promotion to act as referee? Admin 1, would you accept the job?

Mods, could you please move this discussion of the debate setup to the Debate Challenges thread now or when we're ready to start? Thanks. I'll copy this post to Fran in a PM to make sure he gets the message of where this pre-debate "setup" discussion can be found.

No historian would try to argue that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the singular and sole cause for World War I. Rather, it was a confluence of contributing factors such as the alliance structure in place at the time, the personalities and goals of the leaders involved, the decline of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, competition among major European powers for colonies and resources, etc..

Logged

"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

Is there a thread that has a list of possible debates, and or a place to initiate a debate topic?

(You may also like to see edit 2.: on my last post .)

Logged

The truth is the most important thing that there is, yet it is the least popular thing on Earth. And, obviously, this discrepancy is not by chance, but rather, by design-the truth is being actively suppressed.In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act George Orwel

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

True enuff voodoo but I did mention something else in my last post also.

I don't see a list of, or area of for debate topics.

If this is the right right place to see a list of possible debates, I don't see any.

Oh and reread my post second last post. You may see a few things that are not quite seeable on a quick glance at that post. The whole post is debatable.

I am for that this is fact. Government is a fictitious part of life. <<<<That part and other parts if you take a better look see. To debate this topic, I would be on the side that government is not fictitious at all, it is life that surrounds us all.

Anyways for this forum I would think this debate forum is a good thing.

I like the idea and very interesting.

One thing is, where is the list of possible debates?

Logged

The truth is the most important thing that there is, yet it is the least popular thing on Earth. And, obviously, this discrepancy is not by chance, but rather, by design-the truth is being actively suppressed.In A Time Of Universal Deceit, Telling The Truth Becomes A Revolutionary Act George Orwel

Like it or not though American politics have extreme consequences for the rest of the world. A small example Australia got pulled into two wars within a decade because of America.

Logged

Quote

At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.

The question is, if knot is allowed to debate someone - will he be allowed to drown his opponent in YouTube videos?

Personally, I would advise debaters to have a "no video" rule. I think it violates the principle of "equal time"; whereas even relatively long debate responses can be read in a few minutes at most, if you post a video, you're effectively asking someone to sit and watch it through in order to glean whatever point it is you're trying to make. Further, the value of videos as references is questionable, given that they can seldom if ever be considered to be primary sources (unlike, say, a journal article).

you know what knot, go for it. I think your ass will be handed to you in small pieces. but hey its you're ass.

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee